Amid a torrent of boos and under enormous pressure, Steve Smith last night made an extraordinary comeback to Test cricket, rescuing Australia from a perilous position on day one of the Ashes.
Smith’s 144 steered Australia from 8-122 to 284 and reduced England to trying odd tactic after bizarre strategy in a desperate attempt to uproot the stubborn champion. Yet even this monumental ton couldn’t mask a feeble display by Australia’s top seven.
No James Anderson to face, a decent surface for batting and their two star runmakers back in the XI – Australia couldn’t have hoped for more favourable circumstances yesterday.
But then, instead of seeing a brand new Test series, what we witnessed was a re-run, a re-enactment, a recreation of failures past. Hard hands were prevalent, shot selection was shoddy, front pads became obstacles. Wickets tumbled like the rain Australian fans hoped would halt this debacle.
Eventually, the sky did rupture. By that stage, though, Australia had already lost eight wickets inside 53 overs after captain Tim Paine won the toss.
(Photo by Francois Nel/Getty Images)
The keeper elected to bat, as well he should have on a dry, slow pitch that offered limited assistance to either pace or spin bowlers. There are some surfaces on which being eight for nowhere-near-enough is understandable, almost expected, such is the difficulty they pose to batsmen. This was not such a deck. Not even close. A good batting side would have expected 350 and hoped for 400.
Australia’s hope, in the end, was just to make half that, just to avoid complete embarrassment. England knew how vulnerable Australia were with the blade. That was apparent from the moment opener Cameron Bancroft marked out his guard and turned around to count one, two, three, four, five slips. Anderson had the ball.
Having dominated touring sides to a phenomenal extent in recent summers, the veteran swing bowler loomed as Australia’s biggest obstacle. Then, suddenly, a path was cleared when Anderson was forced off the field after bowling just four overs for no reward. His calf strain had flared up again.
With Moeen Ali long having laboured in the Ashes, and Ben Stokes spraying the ball, Australia needed only to quell the influence of Stuart Broad and Chris Woakes.
The pitch was not offering much lateral movement and the Dukes ball was swinging but not a disconcerting amount. All in all, this was a scenario that favoured Australia, that offered a chance for their shaky batting line-up to ease its way into the series. Instead, they squandered a gilded opportunity.
It must be said that Broad and Woakes bowled well. Very well, in fact. Broad mixed up his lengths wisely and was cunning in his use of cutters, particularly the leg variety. Woakes, meanwhile, earned some nice swing, particularly once the ball got a touch older. He cleverly held back these hooping deliveries until he felt he had batsmen where he wanted them. Then he pounced.
But Broad and Woakes were not that incredible, not that irresistible. On a sleepy surface, they should have been forced to toil longer and harder for their spoils. David Warner overbalanced. Bancroft went fishing. Khawaja copied Bancroft. Travis Head copied Warner, who also inspired Matt Wade.
Of that group, only Head looked the part. Perhaps taking inspiration from his batting partner Smith, the South Australian made a concerted effort to keep his front pad clear, to not let it become an obstruction. Finally, though, it did get in the way and he was LBW to Woakes for 35.
Australia would have hoped their skipper Tim Paine could drag them to relative safety from 5-105. Paine’s dismissal, though, was the most galling of all. Fed a half-tracker by Broad, the skipper swivelled and bunted a tame pull shot straight to deep square leg. The English bowler couldn’t believe his fortune, reacting with wide eyes and an open mouth. Australian fans the world over were mimicking Broad.
Australia did get a couple of rotten decisions. The umpires somehow managed to out-shambles the tourist’s top seven. Some people believe that you earn your luck, though, whether good or bad and that seemed about right yesterday. Australia’s one major portion of fortune was their possession of Smith. Even at 8-122 he wouldn’t relent.
(Photo by Gareth Copley/Getty Images)
The former captain didn’t take the easy route of swinging for the fences; no one would have blamed him. Smith placed trust in Peter Siddle and Nathan Lyon. Together with their senior partner that pair showed up the top seven and forged two partnerships that have vaulted Australia back into this Test.
With the bat, Siddle was equal parts gritty and adept. Come to think of it, that description fit Smith, too, for the most part. While, at the end of his innings, he began to time the ball crisply, for a long while he was searching for rhythm, hunting for that familiar sense of command. What he didn’t need to locate was the patience, determination and composure that are as pivotal to his enormous Test success as his rare skill.
Those three attributes were in short supply elsewhere yesterday. Once more, Smith has rescued Australia.
Peter Warrington
Guest
that's right. Carey's not in the wings. he was front and centre good to see Paine playing with relative freedom in the wee hours. my feedback is clearly helping!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
But is missing the inside edge somehow worse than giving an LBW where the ball is clearly missing the stumps? Sometimes those inside edges, even when it's a big edge, can be hard to pick up, but the umpire should be able to work out that Broad bowling around the wicket to a left-hander and moving the ball into him, not straightening, when the batsman is batting well out of his crease, is almost zero chance of hitting in line and still hitting the stumps. Surely that's just as much of a howler.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
For the good umpires, the TV cameras can actually be a good thing. I've umpired in a game where I had the fielding team scream at me and call me a cheat and go on and on for giving a caught behind appeal not out despite there being clear daylight between bat and ball. In cases like that I'd love them to be able to send it upstairs and have the TV replays prove me right! We've certainly seem many games with quality umpires where just about every challenge simply shows that the umpire got it right, and on the rare occasion it doesn't, it generally shows it was pretty tight. If you are getting lots of decisions wrong, and significantly wrong, then you might not like the replays.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Just because a batsman doesn't realise that it's a shocking umpiring decision, doesn't mean it isn't.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Loved Artherton's use of rocks and dirt to ball tamper and didn't Rabada use a coke bottle top or du plussis? No bans for them . SAB AND ECB over turn or deny. Haven't even looked at Indias history. the point is ACB and Aussie media reacting to the nanny state in Australia mentality went overboard although Warner deserved six months or more for conjuring up perhaps the worst idea to do it. Just do what Artherton did use some dirt and gravel. Same thing .
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Totally disagree Betty. Smith had no intention to use sandpaper and looked in shock over it . His crime was defending his team and going up with a conjured excuse. I do however almost feel your case for Warner what he did was unforgivable . All the evidence points to him initially throwing Smith under the bus. The ban for smith was ridiculous time wie seeing Atherton , Rabada , Du Plessis have all been caught using foreign objects on the ball. The ban 1 match at most overturned by their respective cricket boards or overlooked and fudged over in athertons case. They are all at it with the ball. Warner was just a class A idiot. Not known for his IQ. The boks did very well to rile him up too before it insulting his wife explicitly . He reacted badly.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
I actually think I follow Husseins sentiments which I was thinking already. Australia really could have had england bowled out for less than 250. I read you about earning luck but you can't do more than hit the stumps as Pattinson did with Root around 10 and the clear Lbw of Burns was when he was under 20 runs. That has to also be blamed on poor judgment by tim paine and lyon . They added in excess of 160 runs to englands total . I think Australia were a bit poor in the field to miss two run outs as well but I take nothing away from Australias bowlers on a day that was way more favorable to batting than Day 1. If anything we may have missed the beat not putting england in to bat but the brown surface was highly deceptive you had to consider the cloud cover and potential for better weather on day 2. Tricky. England are lucky to have a lead in this match on first innings thats for sure. If Australia can salvage a draw with some bad weather it would be a huge result. They need to dig in today but Wades lack of technique does not give me confidence and Paine needs to play a captains knock if he wants the armband for me. He's not added much that carey could not have exceeded so far for me.
Simoc
Guest
Currently this headline would seem to be a permanent fixture.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I'm not sure who is the 'class' player who is meant to replace Bancroft. I wouldn't have picked him but we are hardly oozing high class players. Warner can help by scoring some runs next test, that wouldn't hurt.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Pretty funny comment though I can't work out who this 'unblemished' nonsense is actually referring to as it sure as hell isn't the Aussies.
JamesH
Roar Guru
You're really going to split hairs over one run? Good for you. My point was (quite clearly, if you feel like scrolling up a little) that he averages significantly more than the guys below him, and does so because he's a better test batsman. I don't even know what your own point was with that 'stats glitch' comment. If you're implying that his average doesn't give a reasonable reflection of his batting ability then it's a pretty weak case. 35 test innings is plenty to weed out anomalies. 27 of those have been since his return to the side less than 2 years ago years and he's still averaged 33.4 over that time. He's only once gone three consecutive innings without passing 20, which is excellent. Paine's flaw is that he gets himself out and doesn't convert starts into big knocks. That's a fair criticism but it's also why he bats at seven and not six. Having your number seven average in the mid 30s is perfectly respectable. It's bizarre the expectations people are placing on a specialist wicketkeeper who has also been shouldering the captaincy during a high pressure period in Australian cricket. We don't have the next Gilchrist or Dhoni waiting in the wings. He's the best we've got unless you're willing to take a significant step down in keeping quality. I'm not.
Josh H
Roar Rookie
I don't disagree, just that Bairstow and Buttler are unanimously superior, which is why they are picked Point is, I don't want Australia to be like England, and completely miss the balance of the side
Josh H
Roar Rookie
A keeper who can actually keep is worth their weight in diamonds
anon
Roar Pro
It’s a bit different when 3 players conspire to alter the bell with sandpaper. They brazenly cheated. At least with a mint you have plausible deniability, but a mint gives far less advantage than sandpaper.
Peter Warrington
Guest
no. my point stands. he isn't averaging 35. will be averaging 25 before long. which point of yours stands?
Ad-O
Guest
Bah humbug! Theres ball tamperers in every team in international cricket. Some are even captains. Some even have knighthoods. Plenty of Aussie sports heroes have bent the rules. It's part of elite level sport. We do have a Tour de France winner with our passport after all.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Lol okay they hadn't updated it since his last innings (it's now 34.10: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7252.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings ). My point stands.
Peter Warrington
Guest
it's a much older vein of power dennis lindsay. just a freak alan knott Bacchus - superb batsman at his peak Dujon and obviously Haddin since Gilly. Nev was originally squadded due to his superior batting a counter attacking keeper at 7 is worth their weight in gold.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Yes I have. Just a little English lesson for you: Hyperbole: “exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.” I said almost so it’s not a hyperbole, almost by definition!
Peter Warrington
Guest
yes but half of 330 is generally not as impressive as half of 200.